Culinary Workers Union, Local 226

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 284 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, affiliated with
the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Association, AFL-
CIO (Desert Palace, Inc. d/b/a Caesars Palace,
et al.) and Nevada Resort Association. Case 31-
CB-5993
29 August 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 6 February 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Burton Litvack issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Culinary
Workers Union, Local 226, affiliated with the
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Association, AFL-CIO,
Las Vegas , Nevada, its officers , agents, and repre-
sentatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
Donald P. Cole, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Philip P. Bowe, Esq. (Davis, Cowell & Bowe), of San Fran-
cisco, California, for the Respondent.
Gregory J. Kamer, of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge. On De-
cember 13, 1984, and June 18, 1985, respectively, the
Nevada Resort Association (the NRA) filed an original
and a first amended unfair labor practice charge in the
above-captioned matter. Based on the charge, the Re-
gional Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board (the Board) issued a complaint on June 28,
1985, alleging that Culinary Workers Union, Local 226,
affiliated with the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Association, AFL-
CIO (the Respondent) engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act). The Respondent timely filed an answer, denying
the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to
a notice of hearing, the above-captioned matter was tried
before me on October 3, 1985, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
During the trial, all parties were afforded the opportuni-
ty to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer into
the record all relevant evidence, to argue their legal po-
sitions orally, and to file posthearing briefs. All parties
filed such briefs, and these were carefully considered by
me. Accordingly, based on the entire record, including
the posthearing briefs and my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses,' I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The NRA is an employer association which admits to
its membership firms engaged in the operation of resort
hotels in Las Vegas, Nevada, and which exists, in part,
for the purpose of negotiating and administering collec-
tive-bargaining agreements on behalf of its member-em-
ployers with the collective-bargaining representatives, in-
cluding the Respondent, of their various employees.
Among the NRA's member-employers are the following
resort hotels: Desert Palace, Inc., d/b/a Caesars Palace;
Hilton Nevada Corporation, d/b/a Flamingo Hilton;
Riverboat Casino, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Casino; MGM
Grand Hotel; Hughes Properties, Inc., d/b/a Sands
Hotel & Casino Division; Hotel Ramada of Nevada,
d/b/a Tropicana Hotel and Casino; Summa Corporation,
d/b/a Desert Inn Country Club & Spa Division; Summa
Corporation, d/b/a Frontier Hotel & Casino Division;
Summa Corporation, d/b/a Castaways Hotel & Casino
Division; Summa Corporation, d/b/a Silver Slipper
Casino Division; and Hilton Hotels Corporation d/b/a
Las Vegas Hilton. At all times material, the above-
named hotel/casinos, and each of them, have been cor-
porations existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Nevada, with offices and places of business for each lo-
cated in Las Vegas, Nevada, where each is engaged in
the business of operating a hotel and casino. In connec-
tion with their above-described business activities, the
above-named member-employers of the NRA each annu-
ally derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and pur-
chases and receives goods or services valued in excess of
$5000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of
Nevada. The Respondent admits that each of the above-
named member-employers of the NRA is now, and has
been at all times material, an employer engaged in com-
merce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma-
terial, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
i There were just two witnesses who testified during the hearing-
Vincent Helm, the executive director of the NRA, and Dents Michaels,
the assistant secretary-treasurer for the Respondent and the official re-
sponsible for supervising its other business agents and for processing
grievances through arbitration. Their testimonies were not conflicting
and, indeed , there does not appear to be any dispute regarding the record
evidence Accordingly, my factual findings are based on what I believe
to be the uncontroverted record evidence
281 NLRB No. 43
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 226 (CAESARS PALACE) 285
III. THE ISSUE
The complaint alleges that the Respondent engaged in
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by failing
and refusing to furnish to the NRA , acting as the repre-
sentative for purposes of collective bargaining of each of
its above-named member-employers and others, "copies
of all arbitration decisions and awards to which Re-
spondent has been a party , involving facilities located in
Clark County , Nevada." Contrary to the Respondent,
the complaint alleges that the arbitration decisions are
relevant and necessary to enable the NRA to administer
collective-bargaining agreements between its member-
employers and the Respondent.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. The appropriate units
The Nevada Resort Association is the representative
for purposes of collective bargaining of resort
hotel/casinos in Clark County, Nevada , the county es-
sentially encompassing the city of Las Vegas . On behalf
of its member-employers,2 the NRA engages in bargain-
ing with nine separate labor organizations , including the
Respondent, which represent various bargaining units" of
the hotel/casinos' employees . The record establishes that
historically the NRA negotiates two separate, but sub-
stantially identical,4 collective-bargaining agreements
with these labor organizations. One, which the NRA ne-
gotiates on behalf of its member hotel/casinos located in
the downtown Las Vegas area, is termed the "downtown
contract," and the other , which the NRA negotiates on
behalf of those member -employers located on or in the
vicinity of the so-called Las Vegas strip, is termed the
"strip agreement ."s The record further establishes that,
at least for the time period 1973 through 1984 , all the
NRA labor contracts were multiemployer type agree-
ments, with the bargaining units in all of the various
labor organizations ' contracts during this period compris-
ing various employees of all the downtown or strip
NRA member hotel/casinos.
The 1980 through 1984 strip agreement between the
NRA, on behalf of 14 member hotel/casinos, and the Re-
spondent expired , by its terms, on April 1, 1984. The
record reveals that, prior to January 16, 1984, 11 of the
signatory strip hotels (Caesars Palace, Castaways
Hotel/Casino, Desert Inn & Country Club, Flamingo
Hotel & Tower, Las Vegas Hilton , Holiday Casino,
MGM Grand Hotel, Sands Hotel & Casino , Silver Slip-
per, Tropicana, and Frontier Hotel) had delivered sepa-
rate but identically worded letters to the Respondent.
The letters informed the Respondent of the signatory
hotel/casino 's intent to reopen the above agreement for
the purpose of negotiating modifications and changes, of
the signatory hotel/casino's "intent to negotiate on an in-
dividual basis and not to be party to multi-employer or
association bargaining in any sense of the word," that the
signatory hotel/casino "has authorized the [NRA] .. .
to negotiate on its behalf on an individual employer .. .
basis," and that the signatory hotel/casino was willing to
engage in negotiations jointly with other strip
hotel/casinos . As a result of the foregoing written with-
drawals from multiemployer bargaining " and of authori-
zations from the above 11 hotel/casinos to the NRA to
act as their representative for purposes of collective bar-
gaining "on a single employer basis," commencing on
January 16, 1984, the NRA and the Respondent engaged
in bargaining on a successor strip agreement . The results
of the negotiations were separate but substantially identi-
cal agreements between Respondent and the 11 strip
hotel/casinos, with each agreement essentially effective
from either May or June 1984 through June 1, 1989. The
record further reveals that the downtown NRA member
hotel/casinos, which had previously bargained on a mul-
tiemployer basis, negotiated in 1984 with the Respondent
in the same manner as did the strip hotel/casino NRA
members, that separate collective-bargaining agreements
were reached with each, that these agreements were sub-
stantially identical to those agreements between the Re-
spondent and the strip hotel/casinos, and that whatever
agreements were reached between the Respondent and
the so-called independents in 1984 were , as in the past,
substantially identical to the contracts between the Re-
spondent and the NRA member downtown and strip
hotel/casinos.
2 There are currently 28 Las Vegas area hotel/casinos which are mem-
bers of the NRA.
a The unit of employees represented by the Respondent includes em-
ployees in kitchen , dining room , casino, bell desk, and housekeeping clas-
sifications.
4 The differences exist in the wage provisions and in some minor lan-
guage provisions.
s Besides the NRA member hotel/casinos, there are other Las Vegas
area hotel/casinos which have collective-bargaining relationships with
some, if not all, of the nine hotel/casino employee labor organizations,
including the Respondent . These facilities are known as "independents."
According to the NRA executive director , Vincent Helm, during ongo-
ing contract negotiations between the NRA and the labor organizations,
the independents usually execute "me-too" contracts, binding themselves
to whatever agreement is reached by the NRA. As a result, the inde-
pendents ' collective-bargaining agreements are "virtually word for word"
identical to those between the NRA and the various hotel/casino labor
organizations . Helm estimated that approximately 40 percent of the Las
Vegas area hotel/casinos are independents, and the parties stipulated that,
between 1973 and 1984 , the Respondent had a series of contracts with 10
such independents , with the agreements substantially identical to either
the existing downtown or strip NRA contracts.
2. The contractual arbitration procedure and the
request for copies of all the Respondent's Clark
County arbitration decisions
Analysis of the multiemployer strip agreements be-
tween the NRA and the Respondent for the time period
1973 through 1984 and of the 11 strip NRA member
hotel/casinos-Respondent contracts, effective from 1984
through 1989, discloses that the mechanics of the griev-
ance-arbitration procedure (art. 22) have remained sub-
stantially unchanged. Essentially, grievances may be sub-
mitted by either contracting party to the other ; if unre-
s The parties stipulated that the Respondent received each letter prior
to January 16. Also, on January 13, Vincent Helm, the executive director
of the NRA , wrote to the Respondent , stating that the 11 hotel/casmos
had withdrawn from multiemployer bargaining and would bargain on in-
dividual bases.
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
solved, the grievances are heard by a board of adjust-
ment; and, if not settled at that forum , grievances may be
referred to arbitration. The particular arbitrator, who
will hear the grievance is chosen by lot from a panel of
named arbitrators . Over the time period 1973 to the
present, the size of the panel of arbitrators has varied
from 7 to 15 and has included no less than 23 different
individuals . The record discloses that the various con-
tracts between the Respondent and the so -called inde-
pendents also have had-and currently have-arbitration
provisions . Also, while "on occasion" arbitrators who
are not members of the NRA-Respondent arbitration
panel are utilized to hear and decide unresolved griev-
ances, "in the vast majority of cases" panel arbitrators
were-and are-chosen.
The record further discloses that, although arbitrators'
decisions are regularly published by two competing re-
porting services, "the overwhelming majority" of such
involving either NRA member hotel/casinos or the inde-
pendents and the Respondent are not published and that
of the total only "one out of ten" involves an arbitration
between Respondent and an independent . Notwithstand-
ing what appears to be a paucity of the latter type deci-
sions, the Respondent , since 1977, "has routinely at-
tached unreported awards of non-Association Las Vegas
hotels to briefs submitted in [arbitration cases ] where the
hotel was represented by the NRA." The Respondent
has done so aware that such will be accorded significant
weight in like cases .' Indeed , a panel arbitrator, John
Phillip Linn , wrote in a 1980 decision:
All parties bound to the contract language should
make themselves knowledgeable concerning prior
arbitral awards because they may expect to be
bound thereby under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Lack of knowledge of the earlier decisions will not
constitute a basis for relieving a hotel of its contrac-
tual obligations, and the fact that the particular
hotel was not a party to the earlier decision is not
likely to diminish the significance of that decision as
precedent.
Although the record reveals that the NRA had in its
files many of the unreported arbitration decisions involv-
ing the Respondent and either NRA member -employers
or independents, Vincent Helm, the executive director,
believed that the Respondent possessed others about
which the NRA was unaware . 8 In this regard , while ad-
4 The parties stipulated to the accuracy of the Respondent 's counsel's
assertion to a panel arbitrator in 1983 that "panel arbitrators have always
relied upon [prior similar] awards."
a Apparently , these would have involved arbitrations between the Re-
spondent and the independents However, Helm would not rule out the
existence of NRA member -employer arbitration decisions about which he
was unaware "there conceivably could be decisions involving properties
who at one time were a member of the NRA and who during that period
of time of membership . . utilized outside counsel."
Asked which of the 10 non-NRA hotel/casinos with which the Re-
spondent has bargaining relationships are involved in most of the arbitra-
tions , the Respondent 's witness, Denis Michaels, speculated that the
Rivera and the Aladdin hotel/casinos were involved in 90 percent of
them.
mitting that he literally could not for certain know,
Helm testified that , in the "overwhelming majority" of
arbitration cases in which he has represented the NRA,
counsel for the Respondent has produced or cited to a
similar Clark County arbitration case involving the Re-
spondent about which the NRA had no record and was
unaware9 and that such "was a recurring situation." Ac-
cordingly, on September 20, 1984 , the NRA , through
Helm, acting as the bargaining agent for its member
hotel/casinos, mailed the following letter to the secre-
tary-treasurer of the Respondent:
The NRA has for some time been concerned
about arbitration briefs filed on behalf of various
unions which contain references to unpublished ar-
bitration decisions and awards in arbitration cases
involving the local union and a facility which is not
in the NRA, or which was not in the NRA at the
time the award was rendered . In most instances, the
NRA first became aware of the existence of such
cases upon receipt of the Union's brief. Enclosed
with this letter is a listing of all the arbitration deci-
sions involving your Union that the NRA has in its
possession . In order to properly provide contract in-
terpretation services to member establishments;
evaluate the merits of pending grievances; and to
adequately participate in the arbitration process; we
are hereby requesting copies of all arbitration deci-
sions and awards to which your Union was a party,
involving facilities located in Clark County,
Nevada, which do not appear on the enclosed list-
ing of cases.
This information request is to be construed as a
continuing request for the information sought. Thus,
after the submission of the prior decisions you are
requested to continue to submit arbitration decisions
and awards involving your Union and facilities
which are not members of the NRA as such deci-
sions and awards are issued . Furthermore, in the
event your arbitration representative regularly ref-
erences unpublished decisions involving other local
unions of your International , outside of Clark
County, we are hereby requesting copies of all such
decisions and awards , and request that this too be
understood to be a continuing inquiry.
We are cognizant of your right under the NLRA,
as amended , to be reimbursed for all reasonable
costs associated with compliance with this request;
therefore , you should advise us of the costs before
complying with the request should you anticipate
the need to charge such costs to the Association.
Should you anticipate any problems in complying
with this inquiry , contact the undersigned immedi-
ately . Otherwise, compliance is anticipated within
twenty days of your receipt of this letter.
Thank you in advance for your full cooperation
in this matter.
9 Helm stated that the NRA processes 12 to 15 arbitration cases each
year and that he has been involved in representing the association since
1981
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 226 (CAESARS PALACE)
Through subsequent correspondence with the secretary-
treasurer and the Respondent 's attorney, there is no
question that the Respondent not only received the
above-described request for information but also has
chosen not to honor it.
Helm specified four reasons why the requested arbitra-
tion decisions were-and remain-relevant and necessary
to the NRA for it to act on behalf of the NRA member-
employers : contract administration , the arbitration proc-
ess, contract negotiations, and evaluating and selecting
arbitrators . Initially, as to contract administration, the
NRA executive director explained that his office is con-
stantly advising the member hotel/casinos regarding in-
terpretation of the collective-bargaining agreements with
the Respondent, particularly in the matter of discipline,
and that "one of the tools that we utilize is reference to
past arbitration awards ." According to Helm, contract
interpretation questions arise both prior to and subse-
quent to the filing of grievances , and contract language
is often not precise . With regard to arbitration, he ex-
plained that past arbitration decisions are useful in decid-
ing, in the first instance , whether a matter should , at all,
be taken to arbitration . Once into the arbitral process,
prior decisions act as precedent, with arbitrators giving
"most weight" to prior awards involving this contract
and the Respondent . Concerning contract negotiations,
Helm explained that prior arbitration decisions and
awards may "show an interpretation that is contrary to
what we thought we had intended in the negotiating
process, we'll make a specific contract proposal relative
to that ." He added that being unaware of all possible in-
terpretations of contractual language will lead to future
problems. Finally, possessing prior decisions is an aid in
the selection of arbitrators from the specified panel. Such
give the parties "a feel for [an arbitrator 's] philosophical
views."
In addition to explaining the need for all arbitration
awards involving the Respondent 's collective-bargaining
agreements , Helm testified at length regarding the un-
availability of other sources for the information . Initially,
with regard to soliciting past decisions from the arbitra-
tors themselves , he stated that " [W]ithout the consent of
both parties they will not publish an award or issue it to
[a] third party." Further , if any panel arbitrators were
deceased or retired , the NRA would have no access to
their past decisions . 10 With regard to obtaining past de-
cisions from NRA member hotel/casinos, Helm stated
that, inasmuch as several have had changes of ownership
over the years with concomitant changes in top level
management , "the new management has very little when
they walk in to look at . . . past records in the labor re-
lations area."" Finally, as to obtaining the information
from the independents, Helm testified to a degree of co-
operation with some, but "we have certain non-member
hotels that have [a] definitely antagonistic relationship
with the NRA and there's no cooperation." Further, in
the former circumstance , there exists no "in blanket"
10 During cross-examination , Helm could not specify an arbitrator who
had died or had retired.
11 Regarding arbitration decisions involving NRA member-employers,
Helm apparently limited those to which the NRA had difficulty of access
to cases for which the member -employers utilized outside counsel.
287
transfer of information . What cooperation does exist may
be found in particular circumstances.
The only record evidence regarding the Respondent's
reasons for not assenting to the NRA's request for past
arbitration decisions came from Denis Michaels, the as-
sistant secretary-treasurer and the official responsible for
processing cases through arbitration . His testimony
mainly concerned a burden that would be imposed on
the Respondent were it required to produce the request-
ed arbitration decisions and the asserted unavailability of
the documents. Initially, as to the existence of or location
of arbitration decisions prior to 1977, Michaels had "no
personal knowledge ." With regard to the location of
such documents for the time period 1977 to 1981, Mi-
chaels stated that all documents for that era "are in
boxes" and "are basically not in any order." He further
characterized the recordkeeping for that period as "a
mess." Concerning arbitration decisions and awards sub-
sequent to 1981, Michaels testified that, rather than by
hotel, these are kept in the Respondent's files "individ-
ually by alphabetical order" 12 and that one is able to
locate an award only if he knows the name of the indi-
vidual involved. While offering the foregoing justifica-
tion for refusing to honor the NRA's request for arbitra-
tion decisions, Michaels admitted never so advising the
NRA nor did he deny or refute Helm 's assertion that the
Respondent did, indeed, possess unreported arbitration
decisions involving it and Las Vegas area hotel/casinos,
both NRA member-employers and independents.
B. Analysis
Initially, the complaint alleges that since at least April
1, 1984, the Respondent has been the representative for
purposes of collective bargaining of a separate appropri-
ate unit of employees of each of the following named
member-employers of the NRA: Caesars Palace, Cast-
aways Hotel/Casino, Desert Inn & Country Club, Fla-
mingo Hotel & Tower, Las Vegas Hilton, Holiday
Casino, MGM Grand Hotel, Sands Hotel & Casino,
Silver Slipper, Tropicana, and Frontier Hotel. The
record establishes that, prior to 1984, these so-called strip
hotel/casinos, represented by the NRA, negotiated with
the Respondent on a multiemployer basis, with the Re-
spondent acting as the bargaining representative of an
overall unit of employees (including individuals in cer-
tain kitchen, dining room, casino , bell desk, and house-
keeping classifications) employed by the foregoing NRA
member-employers. It is well settled that in order to ef-
fectively withdraw from multiemployer bargaining, an
employer must give the employer association and the
labor organization written notice prior to the commence-
ment of the multiemployer bargaining expressing its sin-
cere intent to withdraw from the multiemployer unit and
to pursue negotiations on an individual basis . Groton
Piping Corp., 246 NLRB 99, 101 (1979); Acme Wire
12 During my questioning , Michaels added that arbitration decisions
and awards are found in the Respondent 's grievance files, which are ar-
ranged in alphabetical order . Further, to locate an arbitration decision,
one would have to go through each and every grievance file unless the
name of a particular grievant whose matter was processed through arbi-
tration is known . Michaels termed the files "quite extensive."
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Works, 229 NLRB 333, 335 (1977); Retail Associates, 120
NLRB 388, 395 (1958). Here , there can be no question
that the above-named strip hotel/casinos effectively
withdrew from multiemployer bargaining and that, as a
result of the subsequent bargaining , separate agreements,
establishing individual employer bargaining units, be-
tween the Respondent and each of the named NRA
member-employers were reached . Thus , prior to the
onset of negotiations between the NRA, acting as the
bargaining representative of each of the hotel /casinos,
and the Respondent on January 16, 1984, each of the 11
named facilities wrote to the Respondent , expressing an
unequivocal intent "to negotiate on an individual basis
and not to be party to multiemployer or association bar-
gaining." Also, on being authorized to do so , prior to the
start of bargaining, Vincent Helm wrote to the Respond-
ent, informing the latter that the NRA would be repre-
senting the above member -employers on an individual
basis and that they would not engage in multi-employer
bargaining . In these circumstances and as counsel for the
Respondent , in his posthearing brief, conceded that
"they bargain on an individual employer basis," I find
that each of the named strip hotel/casinos bargained sep-
arately with the Respondent in 1984 and that the result-
ant collective -bargaining agreements , effective until June
1, 1989 , set forth separate appropriate units of employees
for each facility . Groton Piping Corp ., supra ; Acme Wire
Works , supra ; Retail Associates, supra.
The crux of the matter here is, of course, the NRA's
September 20, 1984 request for "copies of all arbitration
decisions and awards to which [the Respondent] was a
party, involving facilities located in Clark County,
Nevada," and the complaint allegation that the Respond-
ent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act by failing and refusing to provide the information to
the NRA . At the outset , I note that the applicable legal
principles are well established and not in dispute. Thus,
an employer is obligated to provide such information to
a labor organization as may be relevant and necessary
for the latter to fulfill its obligations as the representative
of that employer 's employees for purposes of collective
bargaining . NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432
(1967); Southern Nevada Builders Assn ., 274 NLRB 350
(1985); Bohemia, Inc., 272 NLRB 1128 (1984); Westing-
house Electric Corp., 239 NLRB 106 (1978 ). And, "a
[labor organization 's] duty to furnish information rele-
vant to the bargaining process is parallel to that of an
employer ." Printing & Graphic Communications Local 13
(Oakland Press), 233 NLRB 994, 996 ( 1977). In analyzing
whether requested information is relevant , a "liberal, dis-
covery-type standard" is utilized by the Board, one
which requires only the "probability that the desired in-
formation [is] relevant, and that it would be of use to the
[requesting party] in carrying out its statutory duties and
responsibilities." Acme Industrial Co., supra at 437; Bohe-
mia, Inc., supra at 1129 . The standard of relevancy ap-
plies to all requests for information ; however, "where
the requested information concerns wage rates, job de-
scriptions, and other information pertaining to employees
within the bargaining unit , this information is presump-
tively relevant ." Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916, 918 ( 1984);
Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987 (1975). On the other
hand, when the request is for information outside the
bargaining unit, the requesting party must "demonstrate
the reasonable and probable relevance of the requested
information ." Southern Nevada Builders Assn ., supra at
351; Pfizer, Inc., supra. In the latter circumstance, citing
and quoting from San Diego Newspaper Guild v. NLRB,
548 F.2d 863, 867-368 (9th Cir. 1977), the Board requires
that " [t]o satisfy its burden , a [requesting party] `must
offer more than mere "suspicion or surmise " for it to be
entitled to the information .' The 'showing . . . must be
more than a mere concoction of some general theory
which explains how the information would be
useful. . . .' Otherwise, the [requesting party] would
have 'unlimited access to any and all data which the
[other party] had."' Southern Nevada Builders Assn.,
supra.
Clearly, the NRA, acting on behalf of its member-em-
ployers, in seeking copies of all past and future Clark
County arbitration decisions to which it was a party
from the Respondent, was seeking information outside
the scope of the post-1984 individual strip employer bar-
gaining units and the pre-1984 multiemployer strip bar-
gaining unit. The NRA sought to establish the relevancy
of its request by relying on the testimony of Executive
Director Vincent Helm, who expressed four reasons un-
derlying or justifying the NLRA's request. Without de-
ciding the sufficiency of the three remaining relevancy
claims,' 3 I found most compelling Helm's contention
that the arbitration decisions are relevant and necessary
for the processing of arbitration cases on behalf of each
of the 11 named strip hotel/casinos . Initially , it is noted
that both the Supreme Court and the Board have held
that information which aids the arbitral process is rele-
vant and should be provided. Acme Industrial Co., supra;
Pfizer, Inc., supra; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.,
259 NLRB 225, 227 (1981). Indeed, there can be no ques-
tion of the relevancy of the materials sought here, given
the pattern of collective bargaining in the Las Vegas,
Nevada area, the Respondent's conduct since 1977, and
the attitude of the arbitrators who regularly decide Las
Vegas area arbitration cases. With regard to the pattern
of bargaining in the Las Vegas area, the record estab-
lishes that the Respondent's collective-bargaining agree-
ments with both downtown and strip NRA member
hotel/casinos and with downtown and strip independents
are substantially identical in content and that, in effect,
the Respondent's member-employers, no matter where
employed in the Las Vegas area, are subject to virtually
identical terms and conditions of employment. Further-
more , since 1977, in apparent recognition of this fact, the
Respondent has routinely attached arbitration decisions,
involving itself and independent facilities, to briefs which
are submitted in arbitration cases where the hotel/casino
is represented by the NRA and which involve similar
13 Regarding Helm's assertion that the arbitration decisions are rele-
vant and necessary for the evaluation of contract proposals during collec-
tive bargaining , I note that the NRA 's request came subsequent to the
conclusion of bargaining over the 1984 to 1989 contracts between the
NRA-represented hotel /casinos and the Respondent . If Helm's assertion
has merit, why was not such a request made prior to the commencement
of bargaining on January 16, 19849 Bohemia, Inc., supra at 1129
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 226 (CAESARS PALACE)
fact situations or the same contract language . The Re-
spondent has acted in this manner aware that the at-
tached prior decisions have been accorded precedential
weight by the arbitrators . Finally , in accord with this ap-
parent propensity of all panel arbitrators are the words
of one panel arbitrator who ruled that "All parties bound
to the contract language should make themselves knowl-
edgeable concerning prior arbitral awards because they
may expect to be bound . . . under the doctrine of stare
decisis."
Viewed in this context, the Respondent's areawide ar-
bitration decisions do appear to be relevant to the proc-
essing of NRA member-employer arbitrations involving
the Respondent, and Helm 's testimony is, therefore, sig-
nificantly more than a mere concoction of general
theory . Thus, the Respondent 's arbitration decisions
clearly act as precedent in cases involving similar factual
or contractual issues . Analysis of them will enable NRA
member-employers to decide , in the first instance, the
merits of their positions and whether to proceed to arbi-
tration at all. The following words of the Supreme Court
are particularly pertinent on this point:
Arbitration can function properly only if the griev-
ance procedures leading to it can sift out unmeritor-
ious claims . For if all claims originally initiated as
grievances had to be processed through to arbitra-
tion, the system would be woefully overburdened.
Yet, that is precisely what the respondent 's restric-
tive view would require . It would force [the taking
of] a grievance . . . to arbitration without providing
the opportunity to evaluate the merits of the claim.
The expense of arbitration might be placed upon the
[NRA member-employer] only for it to learn that
[its position] had been relegated to the junk heap.
Nothing in Federal labor law requires such a result.
Acme Industrial Co., supra at 438-439 . In addition, as
Helm testified , once into the arbitral process, prior Clark
County arbitration decisions which involve the Respond-
ent and similar fact situations or contractual language are
relied on by both the parties and the arbitrators as case
precedent . Accordingly , it is my conclusion that, at least
in the circumstances of this case, the relevancy of the
Respondent 's arbitration decisions involving Las Vegas
area hotel/casinos vis-a-vis the processing of arbitration
cases on behalf of the named NRA member -employers
by the Association has been established by the NRA and
by the General Counsel.
The Respondent 's counsel, in his posthearing brief,
raised several defenses to such a fording . Initially, he
argues that, in reality , there may be just a small number
of its Clark County arbitration decisions about which the
NRA is unaware and that, citing American Standard, 203
NLRB 1132 (1973), the Board has held that a bad-faith
bargaining charge for refusal to provide information
cannot rest on "de minimis violations." While it may be
that there are few such arbitration decisions about which
the NRA is unaware, Denis Michaels did not deny the
existence of such documents, and I have found their rel-
evance to the arbitral process involving the Respondent
and the NRA member-employers . Contrary to counsel,
289
American Standard, supra, does not stand for the cited
proposition but rather the Board there found requested
documents to be relevant but of "such picayune signifi-
cance that there is no basis . . . for concluding that fail-
ure to supply it would impede the union in its proper
functioning." Id. at 1133 . Here, of course, the requested
information is of consequential value to the processing of
arbitration cases by the NRA member-employers. Next,
counsel argues that any decisions not provided have not
been shown to be any more accessible to the Respondent
than to the NRA . This assertion strikes me as odd inas-
much as Michaels' testimony conceded the fact that the
requested information, although difficult to locate, was in
the possession of the Respondent . Thus, the cited deci-
sions (Plasterers Local 346 (Brawner Plastering), 273
NLRB 1143 (1984) and Food & Commercial Workers
Local 1439 (Layman's Market), 268 NLRB 780 (1984))
are distinguishable as each involves requested documents
in the possession of a trust fund . It is also noted that, in
Brawner Plastering, supra, the respondent labor organiza-
tion was required to submit the information which it ad-
mittedly possessed . Id. at 1144. Further, the NRA's
Helm testified, without contradiction , regarding the diffi-
culty in obtaining arbitration decisions from the inde-
pendent hotel/casinos and even from NRA member-em-
ployers, given their frequency of turnover and conse-
quent gaps in the retention of records. Moreover, Sec-
tion 8(b)(3) of the Act imposes on a labor organization a
duty, parallel to that of an employer, to furnish informa-
tion relevant to an employer's intelligent performance of
its bargaining obligation, and the fact that the employer
may have been able to obtain the information elsewhere
does not, absent special circumstances, diminish the obli-
gation to furnish such information . Brawner Plastering,
supra at 1145 fn. 8; Autoprod, Inc., 223 NLRB 773 at fn.
2 (1976). Another defense raised by the Respondent's
counsel is the assertion that, given its request for infor-
mation concerning matters outside the NRA member-em-
ployers' bargaining units, the NRA failed to meet its
burden of establishing the relevancy of the request. Con-
trary to counsel, the relevancy of the requested Clark
County arbitration decisions involving the Respondent to
the processing of arbitration cases by the NRA on behalf
of the named NRA-member strip hotel/casinos has been
established by the NRA. Nevertheless, citing particularly
to Southern Nevada Builders Assn ., supra, and to Bohe-
mia, Inc., supra, counsel asserts that the relevancy of the
requested arbitration decisions was not conclusively dem-
onstrated . Contrary to counsel , in both cited decisions
the Board concluded that the relevancy of the requested
information either was based on nothing more than suspi-
cion or surmise (Southern Nevada Builders Assn.), or was
lacking any objective basis in fact and, instead, was
based on a suspicion of unfair labor practice conduct
(Bohemia, Inc.). As previously stated, the relevancy of
the requested information here is found in the Respond-
ent's practice of affixing past arbitration decisions to
other arbitration briefs, in the fact that the attached deci-
sions have been accorded significant weight , and in, at
least, one arbitrator's declaration that prior decisions are
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be accorded a binding, stare decisis effect in similar
cases.14
Counsel next turns to the matter of arbitration and
argues that "a party is not entitled to everything in the
other's files that may be helpful." Indeed, the Board, in
Machinists Local 78 (Square D Ca), 224 NLRB 111, 112
(1976), ruled that there exists no "statutory obligation on
an employer or a union to examine, upon request, all evi-
dence in its possession relating to a particular grievance
and to turn over for the inspection of the other party the
evidence deemed 'relevant' to the grievance." Here,
however, we are not concerned with evidence; rather,
given the collective-bargaining pattern in the Las Vegas
area and the weight attached to prior arbitration deci-
sions in similar matters by both the Respondent and the
contract panel arbitrators, what is involved is more fun-
damental and concerns the arbitral process itself. Arbitra-
tion decisions in the Las Vegas area become, in effect,
the "law of the shop," governing at all Respondent-rep-
resented facilities. North American Soccer League, 245
NLRB 1301 (1979). And, if, as it appears, all NRA-Re-
spondent panel arbitrators apply the doctrine of stare de-
cisis, binding the arbitral parties to similar arbitration re-
sults, the required transfer of arbitration decisions is
clearly desirable. Acme Industrial Co., supra. Other cases
cited by the Respondent's counsel are distinguishable.
Thus, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978), con-
cerned a request for the written statements of witnesses
during an arbitration proceeding. Although relevant, the
Board refused to order the documents furnished to the
opposing party based on the Supreme Court's decision in
NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214
(1978). No such countervailing consideration exists here.
Also, while in Columbus Products Co., 259 NLRB 220
(1981), the union had not established the necessity for
obtaining the names of witnesses when the employer
agreed not to utilize the individuals as witnesses at arbi-
tration and had been given the substance of their state-
ments, the NRA has proven the need for obtaining the
14 In connection with this defense , counsel argues that the NRA's re-
quest was not specific as to time and that there has been considerable
change in the language from contract to contract over the years . Accord-
ingly , he asserts that some older arbitration decisions will be wholly irrel-
evant to the terms and conditions of employment established in the 1984
to 1989 contracts and that , therefore, the entire request cannot be given
effect as it "was plainly vague and overbroad ." As support, counsel cites
the two Board decisions-Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 261 NLRB 27
(1982), and Bauer Welding, 256 NLRB 39 (1981 ). According to him, the
Board in the latter decision held that there was no duty to comply with a
vague request for "other 'relevant' information ." I have closely scruti-
nized that decision and can find no such holding . The request was for
information "'relative' and 'vitalto the matter of wages and rates of
pay, and the Board ordered that such be furnished by the respondent.
Bauer Welding, supra at 40, fn . 4, and 41. With regard to Minnesota
Mining & Mfg., supra, the Board refused to enforce a request for an em-
ployer's entire affirmative action plan when "certain portions" did not
appear to be "reasonably necessary" for the union to administer its bar-
gaining agreement . Id. at 28 . Here, as the Respondent has not even indi-
cated the types of arbitration decision it possesses , the relevancy of any
particular one cannot , as yet, be determined. It is sufficient that the NRA
has demonstrated the overall relevancy of the arbitration decisions, given
the Respondent's propensity for attaching unpublished decisions to arbi-
tration briefs and the admitted weight given them by arbitrators. The Re-
spondent's bare claim, without more , that some may pertain to long-since
discarded contract language is insufficient to cause me not to give effect
to the NRA's request.
requested information in this case . Counsel next proph-
esies two threats to the integrity of the arbitral process
by requiring the Respondent to give the NRA all its ar-
bitration decisions . First, he argues , such a result will
reward the less diligent party's failure to do the required
research and punish the better -prepared party. However,
such presupposes equal access to prior arbitration deci-
sions, and nothing in the record controverts Executive
Director Helm's contention that the NRA does not have
access to many of Respondent 's Las Vegas area arbitra-
tion decisions . The second asserted threat concerns the
fact that the arbitrators themselves should be allowed to
regulate the extent of prehearing discovery . However, I
believe that the Respondent has too narrowly framed the
issue . Thus, the instant matter does not concern merely
whether arbitrators should consider past decisions which
are unknown to the other party ; rather, the crux of the
matter involves access. Would it better serve the arbitral
process, especially in the circumstances here involved
when prior arbitration decisions are accorded a stare de-
cisis effect, to have equal access to prior arbitration deci-
sions? As recognized by the Supreme Court, "far from
intruding upon the preserve of the arbitrator , [such a
result is] in aid of the arbitral process ." Acme Industrial
Co., supra at 438.
As a final defense , the Respondent 's counsel asserts the
confidentiality of the prior arbitration decisions , particu-
larly "the privacy interests of the grievants involved." In
this regard , he contends that only the employee , his em-
ployer , and the Respondent are privy to the "sensitive"
facts of each grievance and that providing these to the
NRA could only serve the purpose of alerting NRA
member-employers to potentially damaging information
of the type which could cause embarrassment or possibly
prevent hiring . At the outset , it might be facetiously
pointed out that whatever confidentially attaches to an
arbitration decision is regularly breached by the Re-
spondent whenever citation to one is necessary to enable
it to prevail in another arbitration . Moreover, while a
confidentiality defense is raised in the posthearing brief,
there is no record evidence that such a concern played
any role in the Respondent 's refusal to turn over the re-
quested arbitration decisions to the NRA; indeed, Assist-
ant Secretary-Treasurer Michaels testified at length re-
garding the unavailability of the documents and never
mentioned their asserted confidentiality . Further, counsel
relies on the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. De-
troit Edison Co., 440 U. S. 301 (1979), as the basis for this
defense . However, as pointed out by the Board, "this
case is fundamentally different from Detroit Edison Co.,
supra, for [there] the employer had administered .. .
tests 'with the express commitment that each applicant's
test score would remain confidential .' 440 U.S. at 306."
Pfizer, Inc., supra at 919 . Here, not only is there no evi-
dence that such commitments were ever made to griev-
ants but also there is no evidence that confidentiality was
ever a concern . This defense must be found to be with-
out merit.
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the Respond-
ent is obligated to furnish to the NRA , as the collective-
bargaining representative of its member -employers, Las
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 226 (CAESARS PALACE)
Vegas area arbitration decisions to which it was-and
is-a party and that the Respondent 's failure to do so is
violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. t a
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in, and
is engaging in, unfair labor practices violative of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
At the outset, the Respondent shall be required to fur-
nish certain information to the NRA as the collective-
bargaining representative of its member-employers, in-
cluding the named Las Vegas strip hotel/casinos; howev-
er, the record mandates that what the Respondent must
turn over should be less extensive than requested by the
NRA. What the latter sought in its September 20, 1984
letter to the Respondent, as repeated in the complaint,
were "copies of all arbitration decisions and awards to
which your Union was a party, involving facilities locat-
ed in Clark County, Nevada." First, analysis of the entire
text of the September 20, 1984 letter makes it clear that
the NRA was primarily concerned with the Respond-
ent's practice of making reference to "unpublished" arbi-
tration decisions involving the so-called independents
and itself in arbitration case briefs involving NRA
member-employers. That counsel for the General Coun-
sel recognized this limitation on the NRA's request is
manifest from his statements, both during the hearing
and in his posthearing brief, regarding the extent of the
unfair labor practice allegations . Next, I find merit to
counsel for the Respondent's contention that the com-
plaint allegation is overly broad to the extent that it in-
volves the Respondent's refusal to comply with the
NRA's request for copies of arbitration decisions and
awards involving the Respondent and Clark County fa-
cilities which are neither hotels or casinos. In this regard,
Vincent Helm testified that the Respondent has collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with "certain" Las Vegas
area restaurants and other employers, such as "rentals" at
the Nevada Test Site, and that parts of these agreements
differ from the hotel/casino agreements. Thus, in agree-
ment with counsel, it is likely that some of the arbitration
decisions which are sought by the NRA are based on
15 It is recognized that no direct Board case authority exists for such a
conclusion . However , clearly supporting it is the analogous Board deci-
sion in Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 355 (Dora! Beach Hotel), 245
NLRB 774 (1979). There, the respondent and an employer association
had a collective-bargaining agreement which contained a so-called most-
favored-nations provision . The contract clause was designed to ensure
that the signatory association member -employers would be relieved of
any disadvantages they might suffer if the respondent negotiated more fa-
vorable wages and benefits with other employers. The association de-
manded copies of the respondent's agreements with other employers. The
Board found such information to be relevant and necessary for the asso-
ciation to function as the bargaining representative of its member-employ-
ers, found the respondent's failure to give the contracts to the association
violative of Sec. 8(b)(3) of the Act, and ordered that such be furnished.
While a most-favored-nations clause is not at issue here , the stare decisis
effect of the Respondent 's prior Las Vegas area arbitration awards acts as
a sort of "law of the shop"; therefore, the relevancy of these documents
to the arbitration procedure is as pronounced as was the union 's other
collective -bargaining agreements to the working of the most-favored-na-
tions clause in Dora! Beach Hotel, supra
291
contract language "wholly dissimilar" to that found in
the hotel/casino collective-bargaining agreements. t s Fi-
nally, while it was uncontroverted and not unreasonable
that serious obstacles sometimes confront the NRA when
it attempts to obtain past arbitration decisions from its
member hotel/casinos, the testimony of Helm establishes
that member-employer arbitration decisions and awards
not within its possession are those for which the
member-employer utilized outside counsel. Based on the
foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent shall
be required to furnish the NRA with copies of all unpub-
lished Clark County arbitration decisions and awards in-
volving (1) the Respondent and the non-NRA member
hotel/casinos and (2) the Respondent and NRA member
hotel/casinos where the latter were not represented by
the NRA. t 7 It shall also be recommended that the Re-
spondent be ordered to post the requisite notices.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Desert Palace, Inc., d/b/a Caesars Palace; Hilton
Nevada Corporation, d/b/a Flamingo Hilton; Riverboat
Casino, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Casino; MGM Grand Hotel;
Hughes Properties , Inc., d/b/a Sands Hotel & Casino
Hotel Division; Hotel Ramada of Nevada, d/b/a Tropi-
cana Hotel and Casino ; Summa Corporation, d/b/a
Silver Slipper Casino Division; Summa Corporation,
d/b/a Desert Inn Country Club & Spa Division; Summa
Corporation, d/b/a Frontier Hotel & Casino Division;
Summa Corporation, d/b/a Castaways Hotel & Casino
Division; and Hilton Hotels Corporation, d/b/a Las
Vegas Hilton , are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The NRA is an employer association which admits
to its membership firms engaged in the operation of
resort hotels in Las Vegas, Nevada, and which exists, in
part, for the purpose of negotiating and administering
collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of its
member-employers, including the above-named employ-
ers. At all times material herein, the NRA has been the
duly authorized collective-bargaining representative of
its member-employers including those named above.
4. The Respondent has separate collective-bargaining
agreements covering the time period 1984 to 1989 with
16 It is not unusual for the Board to deny portions of an information
request and to find a violation of the Act in a refusal to furnish other
portions. Thus, in Brawner Plastering, supra, the Board found that a labor
organization violated Sec. 8 (bx3) by refusing to furnish certain informa-
tion which was in its possession but not by refusing to furnish informs-
don over which it has no control. Likewise , in Southern Nevada Builders
Assn., supra, the administrative law judge concluded that an association
was obligated to furnish a union a roster of all its builder-members, in-
cluding those who are or have been bound to a collective-bargaining
agreement with the union . The Board , however, found no violation of
Sec. 8(axl) and (5) of the Act as to the association 's refusal to furnish
information as to those builder-members who never were bound to union
contracts and limited its finding of a violation to the association 's refusal
to give to the union a roster of those builder-members who are or have
been bound to a contract.
17 It shall be recommended that the NRA, on behalf of its member-
employers, reimburse the Respondent for any and all time and expenses
incurred by its representatives in locating , copying, and collating the in-
formation which is to be given to the NRA.
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
each of the above-named member-employers of the
NRA.
5. The following separate units are appropriate for col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act: All employees, including employees in kitchen,
dining room, casino, bell desk, and housekeeping classifi-
cations, employed by each of the above-named member-
employers of the NRA.
6. At all times material , the Respondent was, and con-
tinues to be, the exclusive representative for purposes of
collective bargaining of the employees in the above ap-
propriate units.
7. The Respondent has engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by failing and refusing to fur-
nish to the NRA, as the representative for purposes of
collective bargaining of the above-named member-em-
ployers, pursuant to the latter's request, information rele-
vant and necessary to the processing of grievances
through arbitration.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed18
ORDER
and (2) the Respondent and NRA member hotel/casinos
when the latter were not represented by the NRA.1 s
(b) Post at the Respondent's business offices and meet-
ing halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" for
posting by the 11 named hotel/casinos, if willing, in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the NRA, on
behalf of its member-employers, reimburse the Respond-
ent for any and all time and expenses incurred by its rep-
resentatives in locating, copying, and collating the infor-
mation which is to be given to the NRA.
The Respondent, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226,
affiliated with the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO,
Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Nevada
Resort Association, as the representative of its member-
employers, by refusing to furnish to the NRA informa-
tion relevant and necessary to the processing of griev-
ances to arbitration.
(b) Engaging in any like or related conduct in deroga-
tion of its duty to bargain.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the NRA, as the collective-bargaining
representative of its member-employers, including those
named above, copies of all unpublished Clark County,
Nevada arbitration decisions and awards involving (1)
the Respondent and the non-NRA member hotel/casinos
18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
19 Of course, the Respondent shall not be required to turn over to the
NRA any of the Respondent's arbitration decisions and awards already in
the possession of the NRA
80 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Nevada Resort Association, as the representative of its
member-employers, by refusing to furnish to the NRA
information relevant and necessary to the processing of
grievances to arbitration.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct in
derogation of our duty to bargain.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 226 (CAESARS PALACE) 293
WE WILL furnish to the NRA, as the collective-bar- (2) us and NRA member hotel /casinos when the latter
gaining representative of its member-employers , includ- were not represented by the NRA.
ing those named above, copies of all unpublished Clark
County, Nevada arbitration decisions and awards involv - CULINARY WORKERS UNION , LOCAL 226,
ing (1) us and the non-NRA member hotel/casinos and AFFILIATED WITH THE HOTEL EMPLOYEES
AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BAR-
TENDERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AFL-CIO